3 ms·
Well, as a mainly C++ programmer, I'd trade exceptions for that any day. Much easier to understand what is going on, no need to find out if something in the ca
by vardump 11y ago
Well, as a mainly C++ programmer, I'd trade exceptions for that any day.
Much easier to understand what is going on, no need to find out if something in the call graph of the method I call throws or not. Also error handling code is where the error occurs, not some completely different place.
Properly handled exceptions aren't any less code anyways. Unless you can just drop everything on the floor.
- nulltype 11y agoI think you mean you'd trade exceptions for that.
- vardump 11y agoFixed.
- acjohnson55 11y agoAs a Scala coder, I'd say you can have it both ways by encoding the result as type that can have success or failure cases. No fancy control flow needed, just pattern matching.
- nevir 11y agoYeah, and you can implement that in C++ very easily, too. Googlers might recognize StatusOrReturn, and similar macros.
- masklinn 11y agoYou don't get pattern-matching though, and I expect the implementation would be somewhat gnarly without native tagged unions. At least now that C++ has lambda expressions you can get all the nice HoF so the usage side of the equation has become less troublesome. Still, a far cry from data Result a b = Err a | Ok b